Insurance UpdateApril 17, 2019 | Robert Tugander | Greg E. Mann |
Our April Insurance Update is here. It addresses the following questions:
- A claimant offers to settle within policy limits, and then revokes the offer 41 days later. Claimant goes to trial and gets an excess judgment. Has the insurer breached its duty to settle? The Georgia Supreme Court decides and clarifies its precedent on time-limited settlement demands.
- Is the earth movement exclusion limited to movement from natural forces such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides? The Mississippi Supreme Court weighs in.
- There’s an accidental shooting at a farmhouse insured by a homeowners policy and a CGL policy. Who pays? The Iowa Supreme Court offers its two cents.
- A claim representative overlooks a sewer backup exclusion and partially pays the claim. Is there a waiver? An estoppel? A California federal judge decides.
- Claimants contend their properties were contaminated by oilfield wastes. Another claimant alleges injury from exposure to paint fumes. Does the pollution exclusion apply? Federal judges in Louisiana and Florida give their opinions.
- An insured is sued for shoddy construction. It defaults and the insurer disclaims. Did the insurer satisfy North Carolina’s three-part late notice test? A federal court decides.
- A subcontractor allegedly causes damage outside its scope of work. Must the subcontractor’s liability insurer defend the subcontractor, even if the same loss might not be covered by the general contractor’s insurer? An Illinois appellate court gives its opinion.
You can get the answers to each of these questions by clicking here.
- Robert Tugander
- Greg E. Mann